Specs 01-13 Combined.pdf

ISSUED FOR BID

PROJECT MANUAL & SPECIFICATION

VOL. 1 – DIVISIONS 1 TO 13

CONSTRUCT WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC

AT

Manchester Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC)

718 Smyth Road

Manchester, New Hampshire 03104

Rev. 16 July 2023

PROJECT NO. 689-408

PREPARED BY

MICHAEL AVRAMIDES ARCHITECT AIA

319 E 50TH STREET, STUDIO E, NEW YORK, NY 10022

T: 212-755-5111

RGB ARCHITECTS

50 HOLDEN STREET, SUITE 400, PROVIDENCE, RI 02908

T: 401-272-1730

SMRT ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, INC.

75 WASHINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 3A, PORTLAND, ME 04101

T: 207-772-3846

MABBETT & ASSOCIATES, INC.

5 ALFRED CIRCLE, BEDFORD, MA 01730

T: 914.320.7924

PREFERRED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CO., INC.

94 AUBURN STREET, SUITE 207, PORTLAND, ME 04103

T:973-853-6060 mca New Stamp

11-01-21

Manchester Women's Health Clinic ISSUE FOR BID

Project No. 608-317 Rev. June 16, 2023

00 01 10-1

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

VHA MASTER SPECIFICATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 00 01 10

SECTION NO. DIVISION AND SECTION TITLES DATE

DIVISION 00 – SPECIAL SECTIONS

01 31 32 Geotechnical Data

DIVISION 01 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

01 00 00 General Requirements 11-21

01 33 23 Shop Drawings, Product Data, and Samples 06-21

01 35 26 Safety Requirements 11-21

01 42 19 Reference Standards 11-20

01 45 00 Quality Control* 02-21

01 45 29 Testing Laboratory Services 11-18

01 45 35 Special Inspections 03-19

01 58 16 Temporary Interior Signage 07-15

01 74 19 Construction Waste Management 04-01

01 81 13 Sustainable Construction Requirements 10-17

01 91 00 General Commissioning Requirements 10-15

DIVISION 02 – EXISTING CONDITIONS

02 21 13 Site Surveys 01-21

02 41 00 Demolition 08-17

02 82 11 Traditional Asbestos Abatement 01-21

02 82 13.19 Asbestos Floor Tile and Mastic Abatement 01-21

02 83 33.13 Lead-Based Paint Removal and Disposal 01-21

DIVISION 03 – CONCRETE

03 30 00 Cast-in-Place Concrete 07-19

DIVISION 04 – MASONRY

04 05 13 Masonry Mortaring 10-17

04 05 16 Masonry Grouting 01-21

04 20 00 Unit Masonry* 08-17

04 72 00 Cast Stone Masonry 01-21

DIVISION 05 – METALS

05 12 00 Structural Steel Framing 11-18

05 31 00 Steel Decking 01-21

05 36 00 Composite Metal Decking 01-21

05 50 00 Metal Fabrication* 08-18

00 01 10-2

DIVISION 06 – WOOD, PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES

06 10 00 Rough Carpentry 10-17*

06 20 00 Finish Carpentry 01-21*

DIVISION 07 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION

07 21 13 Thermal Insulation 01-21*

07 22 00 Roof and Deck Insulation 01-21*

07 52 16.11 Cold Adhesive Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene Modified

Bituminous Membrane Roofing

12-21*

07 71 00 Roof Specialties 01-21*

07 72 00 Roof Accessories 01-21

07 81 00 Applied Fireproofing 10-17*

07 84 00 Firestopping 01-21

07 92 00 Joint Sealants 10-17

DIVISION 08 - OPENINGS

08 11 13 Hollow Metal Doors and Frames 01-21*

08 14 00 Interior Wood Doors 01-21*

08 17 10 Integrated Door Assemblies 01-21*

08 31 13 Access Doors and Frames 01-21

08 41 13 Aluminum-Framed Entrances and Storefronts 01-21*

08 51 13 Aluminum Windows 01-21*

08 71 00 Door Hardware 01-21*

08 71 13 Automatic Door Operators 01-21*

08 71 13.11 Low Energy Power Assist Door Operators 01-21*

08 80 00 Glazing 01-21*

08 90 00 Louvers and Vents 01-21

DIVISION 09 – FINISHES

09 05 16 Subsurface Preparation for Floor Finishes 01-21*

09 06 00 Schedule for Finishes 01-21*

09 22 16 Non-Structural Metal Framing 06-18*

09 29 00 Gypsum Board 04-20*

09 30 13 Ceramic/Porcelain Tiling 01-21*

09 51 00 Acoustical Ceilings 12-18*

09 65 13 Resilient Base and Accessories 01-21*

09 65 16 Resilient Sheet Flooring 05-18*

09 68 00 Carpeting 01-21*

09 91 00 Painting 01-21*

DIVISION 10 – SPECIALTIES

10 21 23 Cubicle Curtain Tracks 01-21

10 26 00 Wall and Door Protection 01-21

10 28 00 Toilet, Bath, and Laundry Accessories 01-21

00 01 10-3

10 44 13 Fire Extinguisher Cabinets 08-18

10 73 16.13 Metal Canopies*

DIVISION 11 – EQUIPMENT

11 00 00 Equipment list 03-22

DIVISION 12 – FURNISHINGS

12 24 00 Window Shades 08-17

12 31 00 Manufactured Metal Casework* 01-21

12 32 00 Manufactured Wood Casework 01-21

12 36 00 Countertops 12-18

DIVISION 13 - SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION

13 05 41 Seismic Restraint Requirements for Non-Structural

Components

01-21

DIVISION 21- FIRE SUPPRESSION

21 08 00 Commissioning of Fire Suppression System 11-16

DIVISION 22 – PLUMBING

22 05 11 Common Work Results for Plumbing 09-20

22 05 12 General Motor Requirements for Plumbing Equipment 09-20

22 05 19 Meters and Gages for Plumbing Piping 09-20

22 05 23 General-Duty Valves for Plumbing Piping 09-20

22 05 33 Heat Tracing for Plumbing Piping 09-20

22 07 11 Plumbing Insulation 09-19

22 08 00 Commissioning of Plumbing Systems 11-16

22 11 00 Facility Water Distribution 05-21

22 11 23 Domestic Water Pumps 09-15

22 13 00 Facility Sanitary and Vent Piping 09-20

22 14 00 Facility Storm Drainage 09-15

22 34 00 Fuel-Fired Domestic Water Heaters 09-20

22 40 00 Plumbing Fixtures 09-15

22 63 00 Gas Systems for Laboratory and Healthcare Facilities 09-15

22 67 19.16 Reverse-Osmosis Water Equipment 09-15

DIVISION 23 – HEATING, VENTILATING, AND AIR

CONDITIONING (HVAC)

23 05 11 Common Work Results for HVAC 02-20

23 05 12 General Motor Requirements for HVAC and Steam

Generation Equipment

02-20

23 05 41 Noise and Vibration Control for HVAC Piping and

Equipment

02-20

23 05 93 Testing, Adjusting, and Balancing for HVAC 02-20

00 01 10-4

23 07 11 HVAC and Boiler Plant Insulation 02-20

23 08 00 Commissioning of HVAC Systems 02-20

23 09 23 Direct-Digital Control System for HVAC 09-11

23 11 23 Facility Natural-Gas Piping 04-20

23 21 11 Boiler Plant Piping Systems 09-21

23 21 13 Hydronic Piping 02-20

23 21 23 Hydronic Pumps 02-20 23 23 00 Refrigerant Piping 02-20

23 25 00 HVAC Water Treatment 02-20

23 31 00 HVAC Ducts and Casings 02-20

23 34 00 HVAC Fans 02-20

23 36 00 Air Terminal Units 02-20

23 37 00 Air Outlets and Inlets 02-20

23 40 00 HVAC Air Cleaning Devices 03-20

23 50 11 Boiler Plant Mechanical Equipment 03-22 23 51 00 Breechings, Chimneys, and Stacks 04-20

23 52 28 Low-Pressure Steam Boilers 11-21

23 74 13 Packaged, Outdoor, Central-Station Air-Handling Units 03-20

23 81 43 Air-Source Unitary Heat Pumps 03-20

23 84 00 Humidity Control Equipment 03-20

DIVISION 25 – INTEGRATED AUTOMATION

DIVISION 26 – ELECTRICAL

26 05 11 Requirements for Electrical Installations 01-16

26 05 13 Medium-Voltage Cables 01-17

26 05 19 Low-Voltage Electrical Power Conductors and Cables 01-17

26 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electrical Systems 01-17

26 05 33 Raceway and Boxes for Electrical Systems 01-18

26 05 41 Underground Electrical Construction 01-17

26 05 73 Overcurrent Protective Device Coordination Study 01-18

26 08 00 Commissioning of Electrical Systems 11-16

26 09 23 Lighting Controls 01-18

26 11 16 Secondary Unit Substations 01-18

26 13 13 Medium-Voltage Circuit Breaker Switchgear 01-17

26 24 13 Distribution Switchboards 01-18

26 24 16 Panelboards 01-18

26 27 26 Wiring Devices 01-18

26 29 11 Motor Controllers 01-18

26 29 21 Enclosed Switches and Circuit Breakers 01-17

26 32 13 Engine Generators 01-18

26 36 23 Automatic Transfer Switches 01-17

26 41 00 Facility Lightning Protection 01-17

26 43 13 Surge Protective Devices 01-17

26 51 00 Interior Lighting 01-18

26 56 00 Exterior Lighting 01-18

00 01 10-5

DIVISION 27 – COMMUNICATIONS

27 05 11 Requirements for Communications Installations 09-19

27 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Communications Systems 06-15

27 05 33 Raceways and Boxes for Communications Systems 10-18

27 08 00 Commissioning of Communications Systems 11-16

27 10 00 Control, Communication and Signal Wiring 06-15

27 11 00 Communications Equipment Room Fittings 06-15

27 15 00 Communications Structured Cabling 01-16

27 31 00 Voice Communications Switching and Routing Equipment 06-15

27 51 23 Intercommunications and Program Systems 06-15

27 52 23 Nurse Call and Code Blue Systems 10-18

DIVISION 28 – ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY

28 05 00 Common Work Results for Electronic Safety and Security 04-18

28 05 13 Conductors and Cables for Electronic Safety and

Security

10-18

28 05 26 Grounding and Bonding for Electronic Safety and

Security

09-11

28 05 28.33 Conduits and Backboxes for Electronic Safety and

Security

09-11

28 08 00 Commissioning of Electronic Safety and Security Systems 11-16

28 16 00 Intrusion Detection System 10-11

28 23 00 Video Surveillance 09-11

28 31 00 Fire Detection and Alarm 10-11

28 52 31 Emergency Call System 06-15

DIVISION 31 – EARTHWORK

31 20 00 Earthwork 07-16

31 23 19 Dewatering 10-12

DIVISION 32 – EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS

32 05 23 Cement and Concrete for Exterior Improvements 08-16

32 12 16 Asphalt Paving 09-15

32 17 23 Pavement Markings 08-16

32 90 00 Planting 08-16

*Revised 16 July 2023

Women’s Health Clinic ISSUED FOR BID

Project No. 608-317 June 10 2022

00 31 32 - 1

DOCUMENT 00 31 32

GEOTECHNICAL DATA

1.1 GEOTECHNICAL DATA

A. This Document with its referenced attachments is part of the

Procurement and Contracting Requirements for Project. They provide

Owner's information for Bidders' convenience and are intended to supplement rather than serve in lieu of Bidders' own investigations.

They are made available for Bidders' convenience and information. This

Document and its attachments are not part of the Contract Documents.

B. Because subsurface conditions indicated by the soil borings are a sampling in relation to the entire construction area, and for other reasons, the Owner, the Architect, the Architect's consultants, and the firm reporting the subsurface conditions do not warranty the conditions below the depths of the borings or that the strata logged from the borings are necessarily typical of the entire site. Any party using the information described in the soil borings and geotechnical report shall accept full responsibility for its use.

C. A geotechnical investigation report for Project, prepared by Miller

Engineering & Testing, Inc., dated February 20, 2020, is available for viewing as appended to this Document.

1. The opinions expressed in this report are those of a geotechnical engineer and represent interpretations of subsoil conditions, tests, and results of analyses conducted by a geotechnical engineer. Owner is not responsible for interpretations or conclusions drawn from the data.

2. Any party using information described in the geotechnical report shall make additional test borings and conduct other exploratory operations that may be required to determine the character of subsurface materials that may be encountered.

- - - E N D - - -

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT

MANCHESTER VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

PROPOSED CLINIC

718 Smyth Road

Manchester, New Hampshire

February 20, 2020

Project No. 20.008.NH

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:

SMRT Architects & Engineers Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc.

144 Fore Street, P.O. Box 618 100 Sheffield Road, P.O. Box 4776

Portland, Maine 04104 Manchester, NH 03108-4776

GEOTECHNICAL / SOIL BORINGS / ENVIRONMENTAL / SOILS / CONCRETE / MASONRY / STEEL / ROOFING / ASPHALT INSPECTION

Via email: bsteele@smrtinc.com

February 20, 2020

Mr. Brian Steele, P.E.

SMRT ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS

144 Fore Street, P.O. Box 618

Portland, Maine 04104

RE: Geotechnical Engineering Report

Proposed Women’s Clinic

Manchester VA Hospital

718 Smyth Road

Manchester, New Hampshire Project 20.008.NH

Dear Mr. Steele:

This Geotechnical Engineering Report presents our findings and recommendations for the proposed Women’s Clinic at the Manchester Veterans Administration Campus at 718 Smyth

Road in Manchester, New Hampshire. The subsurface conditions at the Site generally consisted of topsoils and fill materials overlying naturally occurring silty sand and gravel soils, a layer of weathered bedrock, and bedrock; exploration refusals were at depths between 8 and 15 feet below the existing grades on what we infer is competent bedrock. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 12 to 13 feet below grade (estimated elevations 450 to 451 feet MSL).

The topsoils and fill materials will have to be stripped from the building footprint, and the underlying silty sand and gravel soils excavated to design grades. The silty sand and gravel soils and weathered bedrock should provide adequate support to a conventional shallow foundation system for the proposed building. Alternatively, if a basement level is planned, the foundation could be supported directly on a cleaned, sound bedrock surface.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these geotechnical services to SMRT. If you have any questions, please contact us at kmilender@millerengandtesting.com or (603) 668-6016.

Very truly yours, MILLER ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC.

for

Kenneth W. Milender, P.G., P.E. Frank K. Miller, P.E.

Senior Geotechnical Engineer Executive Vice President mailto:bsteele@smrtinc.com mailto:kmilender@millerengandtesting.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

2.1 Existing Conditions

2.2 Proposed Development

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

4.1 Subsurface Soils

4.2 Drilling Refusal/Presumed Bedrock Surface

4.3 Groundwater

5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Foundation Systems

6.2 Slabs-on-Grade

6.3 Seismic Considerations

6.4 Groundwater and Drainage Issues

6.5 Foundation/Basement Walls

7.0 EARTHWORK AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Subgrade Preparations

7.2 Rock Excavation

7.2 Earthwork in Wet Environments

7.3 Temporary Excavations

7.4 Dewatering and Runoff Control

7.5 Placement of Granular Engineered Fills

7.6 Reuse of Site Materials

7.7 Special Inspections

8.0 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

TABLES

Table 1. Gradation Specifications

FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Subsurface Exploration Plan

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Limitations

Appendix B. Exploration Logs

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 1

\\millerserver16\Project Data\2020\20.008.NH Manch VA Clinic\Report - Rev.docx February 20, 2020

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc. has prepared this Geotechnical Engineering Report for the proposed Women’s Clinic at the Manchester Veterans Administration Hospital at 718 Smyth

Road in Manchester, New Hampshire (referred to as the “Site” in this report). This evaluation was completed in general accordance with our proposal, dated September 11, 2019 (Ref. File

323-19), and consisted of the following work tasks:

1. Performing a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program with a series of test borings at the location of the proposed building;

2. Evaluating the subsurface conditions and performing geotechnical engineering analyses to develop recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project; and

3. Summarizing the exploration program and engineering evaluation in this Project

Geotechnical Report.

Presented herein is a description of the proposed project and site, subsurface conditions, and the geotechnical implications on design and construction. The contents of this report are subject to the limitations in Appendix A.

2.0 SITE AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

The Site consists of one parcel of land (Manchester Parcel ID 896-03) with a physical street address of 718 Smyth Road in Manchester, New Hampshire on the grounds of the Manchester

Veterans Administration Hospital. Figure 1 of this report is a Site Location Map depicting the location of the Site on a 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle.

2.1 Existing Conditions

We have examined the civil engineering design sheet “Utility Relocation Plan, Sheet CU101, VA Medical Center, Manchester, Mental Health Addition and Improvements” (dated June 29, 2012) prepared by HDR Architecture, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts.

The Site property is a relatively flat area of the Site property at an approximate elevation of 460 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The VA Campus is constructed on the side slopes of a hillside north of Smyth Road (Figure 2).

2.2 Proposed Development

The proposed VA Women’s Clinic would be a 6,200 square foot addition built onto the southeast

(front) corner of Building #1 at the VA’s Manchester Campus. We understand that the facility has not yet been designed. There could be a full basement level.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 2

3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The subsurface conditions at the site were characterized by advancing a series of test borings through the overburden soil formations in the proposed building footprint. The subsurface exploration program was performed to:

• Characterize the nature and consistency of the soil formations at the Site and provide samples for visual classification;

• Perform Standard Penetration Tests to estimate the relative density of the in-place soil units;

• Estimate the engineering properties of the subgrade soils and provide recommendations needed for designing the foundation elements; and

• Determine the depths to competent soil and/or bedrock, and the depth of the groundwater table.

The test borings (designated B-1 through B-5) were drilled on January 23, 2020 with a truck-mounted Deidrich model D-50 hydraulic rotary drill rig. All the borings were advanced with a

2¼-inch inside-diameter hollow-stem auger. Soil samples were generally collected at 5-foot intervals from the ground surface to the bottoms of the borings. Soil samples were collected using 2-inch outside-diameter split-spoon samplers during Standard Penetration Tests. The

Standard Penetration Tests were performed with a 140-pound safety hammer dropping 30 inches, in general accordance with ASTM D 1586.

Our field engineer monitored the subsurface explorations, measured groundwater levels, and prepared test boring logs. Soil samples were placed in sealed, labeled containers and returned to our office for further evaluation. The test boring logs are included as Appendix B.

4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Figure 2 illustrates the proposed Site layout and approximate test boring locations. The test borings were not surveyed, and their locations and elevations should be considered approximate.

The subsurface conditions are summarized in the table below.

4.1 Subsurface Soils

Results from the test borings indicate that the subsurface conditions at the Site consist of surficial layers of topsoil overlying fill materials, naturally occurring silty sand and gravel, weathered bedrock, and bedrock.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 3

Test

Boring

Estimated

Ground

Elevation (feet

MSL)

Depth to

Suitable

Bearing Soils

(feet)

Approximate

Suitable

Bearing Soils

Elevation (feet

MSL)

Depth to

Drilling

Refusal (feet)

Approximate

Refusal

Elevation (feet

MSL)

B-1 463 4.0 459 8 455

B-2 463 4.0 460 13.5 449

B-3 463 4.0 462 14 449

B-4 463 9.0 454 12 451

B-5 463 2.0 461 15 448

Surficial Layers

All the Site test borings (except B-1) penetrated layers of topsoil at the ground surface, which ranged from 6 to 18 inches thick (Appendix B). Topsoils within some areas proposed for construction had been placed on fill materials during development of the Site (B-2, B-4, B-5).

Fill Materials

All the Site test borings (except B-3) penetrated a layer of fill materials 2 feet thick in B-5 to 4 feet thick in B-1, B-2, and B-3 (Appendix B). The fill materials generally consisted of silty fine-to-medium sand with trace amounts of gravel. Standard penetration testing indicated that the fill materials were generally in a medium dense relative density condition. The fill materials do not appear to resemble the underlying silty sand soil formation, and we infer that these fill materials were imported to the Site during grading and landscaping activities when the Campus was developed. Note that boring B-4 penetrated 9 feet of fill materials that we infer to be backfill around underground utilities that were detected in the vicinity.

Silty Sand and Gravel

Below the topsoils and fill materials, the Site borings penetrated a naturally occurring, brown silty fine-to-medium sand and gravel layer. These soil layers were generally 4 to 10 feet thick

(Appendix B); our Standard Penetration Test results indicated this soil formation was generally in a medium dense relative density condition. This soil stratum did not appear to be glacial till.

Weathered Bedrock

Four of the Site test borings encountered weathered granite or gneiss bedrock directly beneath the overburden. The weathered bedrock was approximately 1 foot thick in B-4 to 6 feet thick in

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 4

B-5 (Appendix B). Boring B-1 did not encounter weathered bedrock. Standard Penetration

Testing indicated that the weathered bedrock was generally dense to very dense.

4.2 Drilling Refusal/Presumed Bedrock Surface

All of the Site borings encountered drilling refusal, the depth below which the hollow-stem auger was not able to penetrate the deeper geologic formations. The depths to refusal ranged from 8 feet (in B-1) to 15 feet (in B-5) below the existing grades (approximate elevations 448 to 455 feet MSL). We infer the shallow drilling refusal in B-1 (8 feet below grade) was due to encountering a shallow obstruction and not from encountering bedrock. We interpret the other drilling refusals to be the result of encountering bedrock. However, rock coring would be needed to confirm that the drilling refusals were at bedrock.

4.3 Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in the Site test borings at depths of 12 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the Site plans, we estimate that groundwater was encountered at approximate elevations of 450 feet MSL (in B-2) to 451 feet MSL (in B-5).

Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be anticipated due to variations in precipitation, snowmelt, site development, and other environmental conditions. Groundwater levels at other times, therefore, could be different from those observed and recorded during this exploration program. Groundwater levels could fluctuate by several feet during the annual hydrologic cycle.

5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Our investigation and engineering analyses indicate that the subsurface conditions at the Site are favorable for design and construction of a conventional shallow foundation system to support the proposed Women’s Clinic building, after removing and replacing any unsuitable soils below the proposed building footprint area. The foundation elements for the proposed building could be supported directly on the naturally occurring silty sand and gravel soils, following preparations made in accordance with this report. As an option, if the building will have a basement level, the foundations could be constructed directly on the bedrock surface.

6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface explorations and our geotechnical evaluations, we present the following recommendations for the design of the proposed Women’s Clinic at the Manchester VA Campus in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 5

6.1 Foundation Systems

The Site subsurface conditions indicate that the building could be supported by shallow foundations constructed on the naturally occurring silty sand and gravel soils or (alternatively) directly on the bedrock (with a higher allowable net bearing pressure).

6.1.1 Shallow Overburden Foundation Option

The Site subsurface conditions are generally suitable for a shallow foundation system, consisting of isolated spread footings (under columns) and continuous, strip footings (below interior and exterior load-bearing walls) to support the proposed building. The building footprint must be cleared and grubbed of organic topsoil and subsoil layers; and then the fill materials (such as utility backfills and landscaping fills) must be excavated to expose the undisturbed, naturally occurring silty sand and gravel soils, which are considered to be the uppermost suitable bearing stratum for this building. Structural fill may be needed to achieve the design building grades.

Engineering analyses indicate that the foundation elements constructed on these subsurface conditions should be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (2.0 tons per square foot).

Isolated spread footings below the building should be at least 3 feet wide. Continuous strip footings should be a minimum of 2 feet wide. If smaller width footings are to be used, the allowable net bearing pressure should be reduced in direct proportion to the reduction in footing width. Use of the allowable bearing pressures should limit total settlements below footings constructed on the silty sand and gravel soils or compacted structural fill to less than 1 inch.

Differential settlement between adjacent footings should be less than 0.5 inch. Angular distortion beneath continuous wall footings should be less than 0.002 feet/foot. Settlement would tend to occur as loads are applied, thus most of the settlement will probably occur by the end of construction.

6.1.2 Shallow Bedrock Foundation Option

As an option, the building could also be founded directly on the unweathered bedrock surface.

Foundation elements constructed on the bedrock should be designed using an allowable net bearing pressure of 8,000 pounds per square foot (4.0 tons per square foot). Under this foundation option, after bedrock has been excavated to remove all loose rock and to expose sound, intact bedrock, any resulting overexcavation between the intact rock and the design bottom-of-footing elevation should be filled with a lean concrete (28-day, 2,000 psi compressive strength) mat prior to constructing the foundation elements. The lean concrete mat would not be needed below areas of the basement floor slab that are outside the footing areas. Rock coring and compression testing would be needed to determine if the bedrock could support a higher bearing capacity.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 6

Isolated spread footings below the building should be at least 3 feet wide. Continuous strip footings should be a minimum of 2 feet wide. If smaller width footings are to be used, the allowable net bearing pressure should be reduced in direct proportion to the reduction in footing width. Use of the allowable bearing pressures should limit total settlements below footings constructed on the bedrock to less than 1 inch. Differential settlement between adjacent footings should be less than 0.5 inch. Angular distortion beneath continuous wall footings should be less than 0.002 feet/foot. Settlement would tend to occur as loads are applied, thus most of the settlement will probably occur by the end of construction.

6.1.3 Additional Shallow Foundation Considerations

The bottom-of-footing elevations should match the elevations of the adjacent portions of the existing foundations. Existing footings should not be undermined or disturbed in any way without approval of the geotechnical engineer.

Foundation elements of the building that will be exposed to subfreezing temperatures should be constructed at a depth of 4 feet below the final exterior grades to provide frost protection.

Lateral forces can be resisted by the shear developed at the base of the footings. Base shear should be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 for concrete cast directly on stable, compacted silty sand and gravel soils, or 0.50 for concrete cast directly on intact bedrock and/or lean concrete mat.

6.2 Slabs-on-Grade

The subsurface conditions beneath the surficial organic layers and fill materials are suitable for constructing reinforced concrete slabs-on-grade for the building. The uppermost 12 inches of material beneath the building slabs-on-grade should consist of Base Course Fill that conforms to the gradation specification in Table 1. This material should be placed in one loose lift and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by

ASTM D1557. A modulus of subgrade reaction (KV) of 150 psi/inch should be used to proportion slabs-on-grade when constructed on Base Course Fill.

6.3 Seismic Considerations

The building will be founded within medium dense silty sand soils. These soils are sufficiently dense and dry so as to theoretically preclude seismically induced liquefaction during the design regional seismic event. Accordingly, design provisions for liquefaction are not necessary at this

Site.

The New Hampshire State Building Code (2015 International Building Code) requires that all structures be designed to withstand the forces generated by the maximum credible earthquake based on the soil and rock conditions. The soil profile beneath the proposed building constitutes

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 7 a “stiff soil” profile, and we assign the Site a Seismic Site Class of C. The seismic site coefficients for computing the design spectral response acceleration parameters should be:

Ss S1 Fa Fv

0.268 0.081 1.2 1.7

6.4 Groundwater and Drainage Issues

Groundwater was encountered in the Site test borings, at depths below grade of 12 to 13 feet below the existing grades (approximate elevations 450 to 451 feet MSL). The building will be constructed within silty sand soils; therefore, the building should be constructed with a perimeter foundation drainage system and a vapor barrier.

At this time, it is our opinion that subslab drains are not necessary for geotechnical considerations. However, should a basement level be proposed, the a subslab drainage system could be necessary.

6.4.1 Foundation Drains

The perimeter foundation drainage system should consist of 4-inch diameter, rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) SDR35 pipe with perforations of ¼ to ½ inch (openings should be oriented downward). The drain lines should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of ¾-inch crushed stone wrapped in a nonwoven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The foundation drains should be placed adjacent to the exterior sides of the spread footings at a minimum depth of 4 feet below adjacent exterior grades to protect against frost.

Where possible, the foundation drains should be pitched down at a minimum slope of 0.5 percent in the direction of flow. Cleanouts should be provided at every other 90-degree bend in order to provide for future flushing the system as needed. The foundation drains should be gravity drained to daylight or to a suitable system outlet, as designed by the project civil engineer in consideration of all applicable municipal, state, and federal regulations. Roof downspouts should be separately tight-lined to their discharge outlets and should not be connected to the foundation drain system.

6.4.2 Vapor Retarder

The vapor retarder should consist of polyethylene 10-mil thick sheeting (Griffolyn Type 65 or approved equal). The sheeting should be overlapped at least 12 inches at the joints and joined by a manufacturer approved sealant/adhesive. All utility penetrations should be sealed to the vapor retarder in order to render them water tight. Continuous water stops should be used to create water-tight joints between foundation walls and footings, and at all cold joints along the foundation walls and footings. The type of water stop and its installation should be specified by the project architect and/or structural engineer.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 8

In accordance with recommendations in ACI 360R, "Design of Slabs-on-Ground", the vapor retarder should not be placed in direct contact with the bottom of the slab, but rather between the free-draining Base Course Fill layer and the underlying subgrade soils. This will allow water to drain from the bottom of the slab during curing, reducing the effects of differential curing which can be a factor causing curling. The project architect and/or structural engineer should confirm the relative location of the vapor retarder and take its placement into account in the design curing specification for the slab-on-grade.

The vapor retarder and Base Course Fill layer should not be installed until the building is weather-tight to minimize the potential for water to be trapped between the slab and the vapor retarder. Precipitation runoff should be directed away from prepared slab areas to prevent free water from collecting on the vapor barrier.

6.4.3 Dampproofing

Dampproofing alone will not prevent dampness, which results from condensation of humid air on cool surfaces in subsurface building areas. Extruded, rigid, polystyrene insulation under the slab-on-grade and outside the foundation walls will help maintain warm interior surfaces. The building mechanical systems could also be designed to condition the air in the occupied spaces by keeping the vapor pressure low.

Dampproofing should consist of a bituminous material, such as acrylic-modified cement or surface-bonded mortar that conforms to ASTM C 887, or approved equivalent applied to the exterior wall surfaces from the top of the footing to above final exterior grades. All holes and recesses from the removal of form ties should be sealed with a bituminous sealant or other approved materials.

6.5 Foundation/Basement Walls

Building walls for the basement level should be designed as retaining walls using "at-rest" earth pressure conditions (restrained walls not allowed to rotate). Geotechnical design parameters for the foundation/basement walls are:

DESIGN PARAMETERS

ϕ (select granular backfill) 35º c (select granular backfill) 0 psf γ (select granular backfill) 135 pcf

Net allowable bearing pressure 4,000 psf (on soils)

8,000 psf (on sound rock)

Equivalent fluid weight (at-rest earth pressure condition, restrained walls) 60 pcf

Equivalent fluid weight (active earth pressure condition, unrestrained walls) 40 pcf

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 9

The earth pressure diagrams can be developed using the design fluid weights, which assume that the walls would be backfilled using Select Granular Fill and the walls will be constructed with drains at foundation elevations.

In addition to differential earth pressure, surcharge pressures should be applied to the foundation walls where appropriate. This uniformly distributed surcharge pressure can be resolved into a force (per linear foot of wall length), which would act at a depth of one-half the wall height below the upper level exterior grades. The surcharge force should be calculated using the following expression:

FS = ½* P * H; where

FS = surcharge force

P = live and dead load from the surcharge (psf)

H = height of wall (ft)

The walls should achieve wall stability factors of safety of 2.0 (for overturning), 1.5 (for sliding), and 1.5 for overall (“global”) stability. A maximum bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot should be used for basement wall stability analysis and footing design (soil subgrade) and

8,000 pounds per square foot (bedrock subgrade).

Lateral forces would be resisted by the shear developed at the base of the footings. Base shear should be calculated using a coefficient of sliding friction of 0.30 for concrete cast directly on the subgrade soils (compacted naturally occurring silty sand and gravel) or 0.50 for concrete cast directly on clean, sound rock.

7.0 EARTHWORK AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the subsurface explorations and our geotechnical evaluations, we present the following recommendations for the construction of the proposed Women’s Clinic at the Manchester VA

Campus in Manchester, New Hampshire.

7.1 Subgrade Preparations

Topsoils and fill materials were encountered in some of the test borings at elevations above the likely design bottom-of-footing elevations. These materials are considered to be unsuitable for supporting the proposed foundation elements. The undisturbed, naturally occurring silty sand and gravel soils are considered to be the uppermost suitable bearing stratum for this construction, and excavation to remove the unsuitable soils should be continued to expose the undisturbed silty sand and gravel soils, or competent bedrock, below the building footprint and all foundation elements.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 10

All pavements, topsoil, subsoil, fill materials, debris, frozen soils, weathered bedrock, and loose or disturbed soils should be excavated and removed from all proposed foundation bearing zones and slab areas to the lateral limits defined by a one horizontal to one vertical (1H:1V) line sloped down and away from the bottom outside edges of foundation elements. All subsurface utilities should be located and removed, and the removal should include the associated backfill materials.

Following stripping of unsuitable soils, the resulting silty sand and gravel subgrade should be compacted with at least four complete passes of a 10-ton vibratory drum roller in directions perpendicular to one another. Silty soil subgrades which are saturated or pump and weave during rolling should be excavated and replaced with Select Granular Fill material that is compacted to at least 95% of its maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, or compacted ¾-inch crushed stone. The depth of undercutting and type of backfill material should be selected with consideration of the proposed use (i.e., buildings or pavements) and the soil and weather conditions encountered during construction. Crushed stone should be placed in 12-inch maximum loose lifts, wrapped in a geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equal), and compacted to ensure stability.

The contractor is responsible for construction means and methods and should anticipate the need for methods to prevent disturbance, softening, or rutting of subgrades, or damage to overlying soils resulting from construction traffic. Care must be taken to avoid disturbing subgrades by keeping construction traffic off of subgrades during wet conditions and/or inclement weather until a firm fill layer has been placed.

Final foundation and subgrade preparation should include re-compaction of bearing surfaces.

Care should be taken to limit disturbance to bearing surfaces prior to placement of concrete.

Any loose, softened, or disturbed material should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill prior to placement of concrete. Excavated subgrades should not be left exposed overnight unless the weather forecast calls for above-freezing, clear conditions.

7.2 Rock Excavation

Bedrock was encountered at shallow depths in the test borings drilled in the building footprint.

Based on the elevations of the existing building and grades, we estimate the cut depths could be minimal, depending on the design basement floor elevation. We anticipate that mechanical means of rock excavation will likely be sufficient to excavate into the rock to achieve the proposed design grades, and that blasting will not be required.

Excavation of rock below the Control Building footprint must include removal of all loose rock and materials to expose sound, undisturbed bedrock. The resulting rock surface should be inspected by the project geotechnical engineer to ensure that all loose rock has been removed prior to placing fills, formwork, and/or concrete.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 11

7.3 Earthwork in Wet Environments

The silty sand soils have a moderate fines content. Care must be taken to avoid disturbing subgrades by keeping construction traffic off silty sand subgrades during wet conditions and/or inclement weather until a firm fill layer has been placed. To reduce disturbance of exposed subgrade soils, it will be important to divert runoff, provide positive grading to shed seepage and runoff, and to compact exposed subgrades to reduce rutting, ponding, and surface water infiltration.

The native soils that will be encountered during construction could be sensitive to moisture and difficult to place and compact during wet weather and freezing conditions. Silty soils that become saturated will not be suitable for reuse as fill and may need to be exported from the Site.

7.4 Temporary Excavations

Construction site safety, means and methods, and sequencing of construction activities is the sole responsibility of the contractor. Under no circumstances should the following information be interpreted to mean that Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc. is assuming responsibility for construction site safety, trench protection, or the contractor’s responsibilities. Such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.

All temporary excavations should be performed according to Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) Standards (29 CFR 1926 Subpart P). It is our opinion that the loose fill materials and the undisturbed silty sand soils are OSHA Type C soils, and temporary unbraced excavations should be cut no steeper than 1½H:1V under dry or dewatered conditions.

7.5 Dewatering and Runoff Control

Groundwater was encountered at depths of 12 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface

(approximate elevations 450 to 451 feet MSL), and we anticipate that groundwater will not be encountered during construction (except potentially in deep utility excavations). However, should the building be constructed with a basement level, groundwater could be encountered in that excavation.

Should groundwater be encountered during construction, inflows should be controlled in order for earthwork to be completed “in the dry”. The contractor should anticipate the need for controlling runoff during wet periods; pumping from open sumps will likely provide adequate control of water within excavations during construction.

Subgrade soils that become unstable should be undercut and replaced with structural fill or crushed stone, as necessary. Surface water runoff should be directed away from excavations to reduce dewatering efforts and to protect subgrades from becoming soft and unstable.

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 12

Temporary detention ponds, trenches, ditches, and dewatering sumps should not be made in areas to be filled.

7.6 Placement of Granular Engineered Fills

Engineered fills will be required to achieve the design grades in several areas of the proposed

Site development. Table 1 is the gradation specifications for soils to be used in the engineered fills at the Site. The different granular fill types should be used as follows:

1. Select Granular Fill should be used for engineered fills below the building footprint areas, in foundation bearing zones, and as backfill around the foundation elements.

Materials used as Select Granular Fill should have the gradation in Table 1.

2. Clean Granular Fill should be used for engineered fills below roadway, parking, and other non-structural areas, and should have the gradation shown in Table 1.

3. Base Course should be used for the uppermost fill below the building slabs-on-grade

(Table 1).

All granular fills should be placed in 12-inch maximum loose lifts and should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material’s maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM D 1557

(modified Proctor test) and verified with field density testing (ASTM D 6938 or equivalent method). Lift thickness should be a maximum of 6-inch (loose) when compacted with hand-guided equipment.

7.7 Reuse of Site Materials

A preliminary assessment of the suitability of using the unconsolidated soils as engineered fills in the proposed construction is based on the soil classifications and observations at the Site. The suitability of these materials is summarized below.

1. Topsoil are suitable for reuse on-site only within proposed landscaped areas.

2. The inorganic fill materials and silty sand and gravel soils are suitable for on-site reuse only in non-structural areas (outside the building footprint) and in landscaping areas.

These soils have a moderate fines content and could be difficult to reuse in earthwork under wet and freezing conditions.

Materials to be used as engineered fills (Select Granular, Clean Granular, and Base Course) will need to be imported to the Site. Representative samples of all materials proposed for use as fills should be submitted for testing during construction to compare their gradation characteristics to the requirements of the project specifications, and to establish their optimum water contents and maximum dry densities (modified proctor testing, ASTM D 1557). The geotechnical engineer must approve use and reuse of on-site or borrow soils for use as engineered fills. Use of

Miller Project 20.008.NH Page 13 materials as engineered fills assumes that the moisture content of the material will be strictly controlled in order to allow for proper placement and compaction.

7.8 Special Inspections

In accordance with the State Building Code, special inspections are necessary during subgrade preparation and placement of fill within building footprint areas. The project geotechnical engineer should be engaged to make appropriate site visits during the excavation and subgrade preparations to confirm that our assumptions regarding subsurface conditions (which were based on a limited number of borings) were reasonably representative and that our recommendations are being properly interpreted and followed.

8.0 FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

A qualified geotechnical engineer should be retained to provide engineering services during the excavation and construction phases of this project. This will become particularly important relative to the excavation of unsuitable materials, and the placement and compaction of engineered fills. This will also allow for design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The adequacy of fill compaction should be determined by field density testing as the fill is placed and compacted.

Representative samples of all backfill materials should be submitted to Miller Engineering &

Testing, Inc. for testing to establish their optimum water contents and maximum dry densities, and to compare their gradation characteristics with the project specifications. In this manner, compaction criteria can be developed which will provide the materials with adequate strength and minimal distortion.

Lastly, we recommend that we be retained to assist in preparation of the earthwork specifications, and to review final design plans, specifications, and design submittals. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or locations of the proposed project are planned, the conclusions and recommendations in this report will not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Miller Engineering

& Testing, Inc.

Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc.

Project 20.008.NH

TABLES

Manchester VA Hospital

TABLE 1

GRADATION SPECIFICATIONS

SIEVE SIZE

PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT

CLEAN

GRANULAR

FILL

BASE

COURSE

SELECT

GRANULAR FILL

8” 100 100 100

3” 70 – 100 100 70 – 100

1½ ----- ----- -----

¾ ----- ----- -----

½” 40 – 100 40 – 80 40 – 90

No. 4 25 – 100 30 – 70 25 – 80

No. 10 15 – 95 20 – 60 15 – 70

No. 40 10 – 70 10 – 30 5 – 40

No. 50 ----- ----- -----

No. 200 0 – 15 3 - 10 0 – 12

FIGURES

Source: A portion of the U.S.G.S. Manchester North, N.H. 7½-minute topographic quadrangle maps (2018).

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

REPORT

SITE LOCATION

MAP

Proposed Women’s Clinic

Veterans Administration Campus

718 Smyth Road FIGURE 1 Manchester, NH

February 2020 Miller Project No. 20.008.NH

SITE

N

MILLER ENGINEERING & TESTING, INC.

100 SHEFFIELD ROAD - PO BOX 4776

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03108

TEL (603) 668-6016 // FAX (603) 668-8641

SUBSURFACE

EXPLORATION

LOCATION PLAN

FIGURE No.VA - Manchester Womens Clinic Manchester, NH

February 2020 Project No. 20.007.NH

KEY

NOTES

1. This plan is a reproduction of portions of "Utility

Relocation Plan, Manchester, NH", (dated June 29, 2014) by HDR Architecture, Inc. of Boston, MA.

2. A geotechnical engineer from Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc. inspected the test borings.

3. Test boring locations were determined by taping and pacing from known locations.

Approximate Test Boring Location

APPENDIX A

Limitations

LIMITATIONS

Explorations

1. The analyses, recommendations and designs submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from subsurface explorations. The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report.

2. The generalized soil profile described in the text is intended to convey trends in subsurface conditions. The boundaries between strata are approximate and idealized and have been developed by interpretation of widely spaced explorations and samples; actual soil transitions are probably more gradual. For specific information, refer to the boring logs.

3. Water level readings have been made in the drill holes at times and under conditions stated on the boring logs. These data have been reviewed and interpretations have been made in the text of this report.

However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level of the groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors differing from the time measurements were made.

Review

4. This firm should be retained to review final design plans and specifications. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of the report modified or verified in writing by Miller Engineering & Testing, Inc.

Construction

5. This firm should be retained to provide soils engineering services during the excavation and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.

Use of Report

6. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of SMRT Architects & Engineers for the

Proposed Women’s Clinic at the Manchester (New Hampshire) Veterans Administration Campus at

718 Smyth Road in Manchester, New Hampshire in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

7. This soil and foundation engineering report has been prepared for this project by Miller

Engineering & Testing, Inc. This report was completed for design purposes and may be limited in its scope to prepare an accurate bid. Contractors wishing a copy of the report may secure it with the understanding that its scope is limited to design considerations only.

APPENDIX B

Exploration Logs

S-1

S-2

1.5-3.5

4.0-6.0

S-1: Brown, fine to medium sand, little silt, trace gravel

(FILL)

S-2: Brown to gray, fine to medium sand, some silt, little gravel

Auger Refusal at 8'

BORING TERMINATED AT 8 ft

(1)

Project: VA Manchester - Women's Clinic Sheet 1 of

Manchester, NH Boring No: B-1

Project No: 20.008.NH…